On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 12:08:41PM +0300, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote: > ср, 30 вер. 2026 р. о 12:02 Thierry Reding <[email protected]> пише: > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 10:05:35AM +0300, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote: [...] > > > +static const struct of_device_id panel_dbi_of_match[] = { > > > + { .compatible = "hit,tx10d07vm0baa", .data = (void > > > *)PANEL_DBI_TX10D07VM0BAA }, > > > + { .compatible = "lg,lh400wv3-sd04", .data = (void > > > *)PANEL_DBI_LH400WV3 }, > > > > Why the detour through that PANEL_DB_* enum? You could just pass the > > panel funcs pointers directly via .data here. > > > > Passing API/OPS via .data is discouraged.
No it's not. We do it all the time. > > Also, looking at the enable/disable sequences these are in fact two > > different drivers, with the only commonality being that they happen to > > be used in the same device. Rolling them both into one driver seems a > > bit odd. > > I did this to simplify maintainance. Both panels are used in the LG > Optimus 2X. My assumption is that LG switched one to another at some > point, hence they share same timings, controls and supplies, but > differ in en/disable sequence. Additionally, these are the the only > DBI Type B-only panels in the kernel, from what I can see. That's just one more reason to put them into more of a generic driver, which would allow people to find it and extend/improve it as needed. > > If you really want to avoid duplication, maybe they should go > > into some kind of "simple" or "generic" DBI driver. > > DBI Type B is not well supported in the kernel. Well, you always start somewhere. Thierry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
